November 8, 2011

This new allegation isn't a claim of sexual harassment, but the active pursuit of relationships with women. Does it fit a pattern in the allegations? I would distinguish the allegations — reported without names and details — that involved his employees. These have to do with making the workplace different for women, a species of sex discrimination in the legal doctrine.

The incident described by Sharon Bialek, like this new one, occurred outside of the workplace, and might be construed as dating. The Bialek allegation involves aggressive groping, which is missing in this new allegation. And it involves a statement that suggests that her effort to enlist his help in finding a job depends on her sexual compliance. So the Bialek allegation has more negative elements than this new one.

But the allegations fit together enough to make us suspect that there is some kind of a pattern. There is a reinforcing effect as these allegations pile up. Our suspicions grow, even if we can imagine a scheme to concoct a bunch of phony stories to ruin the man — a vast left-wing conspiracy, if you will.

141 comments:

Now that Gloria Allred, an character assassin the employ of the Democratic Party, is in charge of this operation, I'm pretty convinced that the attack on Cain is orchestrated from the highest levels of the Democratic Party... probably from the White House.

Althouse, time to face up to what the sex abuse hysteria has become... the ultimate political weapon.

Charges of sexual abuse have become about as reliable as charges of being an "enemy of the people" in the old Soviet Union.

We don't yet know who is hounding Mr. Cain (but we did know that the Republicans hounded the Clintons). Therefore calling it a vast left-wing conspiracy would not be right. You just wanted to put that video of Hillary up, didn't you?

All this infighting with the Republican candidates is not looking pretty and plays right into giving Obama his second term. Cain was never going to get the nomination and why is this going on and on?

The "What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend" statement...as if it would be okay to do whatever he was doing if she didn't have a boyfriend.

Secondly, the part about Cain admitting what he had done to "people" not "me". Two different cops yesterday, one retired, one an investigator, suggested to me that this would set off alarm bells if it were in an statement by a witness.

Anyone who chooses to attack me owes me a decent level of proof. Quote something I have said that is wrong and say why. Don't assume I've said things or think things that you feel I have said or thought.

Herman Cain is talented. He makes friends of everyone he meets. Frequently women make the most valuable friends that you can in political circles. Women will respond to one on one encounters and network for a man they like.

That Herman is a Rich Black Man is the only why we see a meme that Herman makes sexual attacks upon our women.

Speaking of boxing, Herman is being re-created as the latest Jack Johnson figure.

That was Bubba's MO! He would have George or Rahm get phone#'s of lovely spectators.

Professor, I believe struck a nerve w/ one of your regulars here and he's in manic/panic mode. I apologize to you but you're not one to be bullied..I know you can handle it. But, I still am sorry for poking the bees nest.

The story in the Chicago Sun-Times about Sharon Bialek hugging Herman Cain at the Tea Party Convention in Chicago a month ago raises my level of skepticism about her story. In the group photo from that story, she is standing next to him, smiling, with her arm around him. That just is not how victims of sexual harassment/assault normally behave. I also read a story on the web site for a Baltimore newspaper about her history of legal and financial problems. She sounds like just the sort of person who could achieve a financial/employment windfall for helping out Herman Cain's enemies. I'm not saying that she's lying, but something's very fishy here. And one thing's for certain: One of them did something heinous, either Cain 14 years ago or Bialek yesterday.

"I stand by all my statement. If you read them with sobriety and reason, you will see why.

Sharpen up, people."

First, just because we might disagree with you does not mean we aren't sharp or reasonable or sober. Well, okay, maybe you have a point with sober, but . . .

That said, in my possibly dull mind, I have yet to see a pattern past a political one. We have two women who got settlements for what we don't know cause they aren't talking. Another woman who says she was groped but also chose that ambulance chaser to put her story out there which makes it suspect from the get-go, and finally someone who says Cain asked about meeting a woman, which is a big nothing.

If one looks hard enough you can make a pattern out of pretty much anything, just ask the Truthers and the Birthers and the "We never landed on the Mooners."

yeah, everyone gets it that there may be a pattern here or that it may all be concocted to ruin the man or not. But why? Why go to these lengths? And it makes a mockery of the media to dredge this up on this poor man when Obama goes unscathed and protected on all legitimate scandals.

While this is going on, you know what else is going on? Holder is testifying for more gun control using F & F today. Bill Daley the chief of staff has effectively been demoted, fired if you will.

My favorite line from the second story (about Bialek's legal and financial problems) comes from the fiance, who said (as the TV trucks were pulling up and reporters were ringing the doorbell), "We're in it together," he said. "My only concern is that it not become some type of media circus."

Dude! The elephants from the media circus are already pooping on your lawn!

I said: "But the allegations fit together enough to make us suspect that there is some kind of a pattern. There is a reinforcing effect as these allegations pile up. Our suspicions grow, even if we can imagine a scheme to concoct a bunch of phony stories to ruin the man — a vast left-wing conspiracy, if you will."

Now, read that carefully. Every word. Read it with sobriety and reason. Then attempt to pull it apart. Rip it any way you want, but don't pretend the words are different from what they are. I challenge you.

I think for Bialek, the allegation is mainly that he's an aggressive womanizer.

Now, ask yourself, if that's all it is, does that count against him as a candidate?

BTW, remember that we have not seen his wife, and that he has made a point of keeping her out of public view for some reason. We don't know what there relationship is. Do you care about that? Many married couples have an understanding about extramarital activities. Is that an issue you are concerned about when choosing a candidate for the party you want to win.

I heard a radio interview a few months back before the race started -- the way he spoke about his wife, it looked like a healthy marriage. BTW in a Kimmel interview last night, he is calling this Bialek episode a complete surprise, a discovery unknown to him and his staff. His wife is supposed to have said that what Bialek alleged does not sound like him at all.

Shanna, let me ask you personally, as a woman: If a man tried to do to you what Cain allegedly tried to do to her, sticking his hand up her skirt and reaching for her genitals, as she put it, how would it make you feel? Would you be willing to let bygones be bygones 14 years later? Would you go to a public meeting and seek him out like Bialek did, and put your arm around him in a group photo?

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that level of crudity goes way beyond a simple "bad pass" or even simple sexual harassment.

Strom Thurmond said pretty much the same thing to Kate Michelman and Mollie Yard in the way of being polite (Michelman burst into tears at being called pretty, BTW) and anybody who thinks he was making a pass at Mollie Yard thinks Helen Thomas is a red-hot mama.

I see nothing suspicious with this, NOTHING. The accusations have now gone from ridiculous to insane. If you are a hammer all you see are nails; now all his fem/sex fanatic detractors can see is sexual innuendo in anything and everything the man does. This smear campaign is beyond the pale.

He sounds like a low level harasser but hardly using Clinton's level of force on the women. He stopped when she said no, if the account is to be believed at all! He is also not a cruel liar like Riele Hunter's Baby Daddy.

And ladies, let me ask you, when is the last time you traveled to a city to talk about getting a job (not interview for one) and had drinks and dinner alone with some executive at the place that fired you (allegedly for false claims of sexual harassment)? Lunch with no alcohol might be appropriate, but IMHO you're sending a clear signal by agreeing to drinks and dinner.

Lunch with no alcohol might be appropriate, but IMHO you're sending a clear signal by agreeing to drinks and dinner.

In her defense, this is pretty normal in DC. (not the traveling to another city, but drinks with the meal would not raise a flag). I’m honestly more bothered that she went with him in the car. If you are trying to keep it professional, you can take a cab.

Bialek is in the hospitality industry. Part of her job is to look attractive and field passes from high rollers. I'm sure that, if this happened as she said, this was not the most sordid event of her working life. For that matter, Cain looks like a high roller. I don't know if he is truly a womanizer, but it's certainly not inconsistent with the rest of his personality......Some men--see Clinton and Schwartenegger--look like philanderers. Perhaps, that's why they're able to survive such charges. You don't feel conned. Others--see Spitzer and Edwards--play the moralist and good family man role. When the truth comes out, the public feels one with the cheated wife. Cain may survive this simply because the charges are so credible....The Penn State Athletic Dept and the Catholic Church hierarchy acted in surprisingly similar ways. Republicans are acting in similar ways to Weiner Democrats in their reaction to this scandal.

And ladies, let me ask you, when is the last time you traveled to a city to talk about getting a job (not interview for one) and had drinks and dinner alone with some executive at the place that fired you (allegedly for false claims of sexual harassment)? Lunch with no alcohol might be appropriate, but IMHO you're sending a clear signal by agreeing to drinks and dinner.

11/8/11 10:20 AM

The reason she was fired is unknown Pat, why do you assume she was fired for unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment?

Since I often read post alleging people using aliases I suppose that happens. As I've said..I use my name and don't use an alias. That's the truth, I don't lie, and folks can go shit in their hat if they don't believe it. It says much about them and nothing about me.

Who happily accepts a "palatial suite" upgrade paid for by an older man you are allegedly meeting to ask for a job--but you do not mention why you asked for the meeting until having cocktails at the hotel bar?

The clumsy pass in the car--if it happened--sounds similar to what happened at the end of most of my ill-fated college dates.

"And ladies, let me ask you, when is the last time you traveled to a city to talk about getting a job (not interview for one) and had drinks and dinner alone with some executive at the place that fired you (allegedly for false claims of sexual harassment)?"

Scott - I'm not even close to being a regular. I pop in from time to time to see what everybody is complaining about on that specific day...and it's usually always the same.

You and a few others literally live here.

Why not get your ass out of the house and get a real job...or maybe visit a library and read a book...open that little mind of yours to opinions and information that might expand your understanding of issues at hand.

All you ever do is bitch and whine about anybody who disagrees with you or of course, anything related to President Obama.

I tend to believe that these kinds of accusations are not true. That, even though my track record is lousy. Can I remember a case of such accusations against a major political figure that turned out to be unfounded?

I guess my reason is that it's just so difficult to believe that these political figures let themselves in for this kind of thing. Why would Herman Cain run for president? Doesn't he know that there are incidents in his past - if there are - that will come out? Doesn't he understand that his life will have been ruined in a serious way? Not totally ruined, of course, but with clear damage to his public image, his position as a minister, and most of all his marriage?

That's what I can't understand. What are they thinking?

This doesn't apply to every case, of course. Anthony Weiner did his indiscretions after he was elected. I can understand that - people yield to temptation. John Edwards seemed to think that everyone would cover for him; they certainly tried.

Maybe that's what happens to all of them: Go somewhat public, slip up and get away with it, slip up a few more times - and eventually forget about the thin line they're treading.

They get so caught up in their own perception of themselves, combined with the sycophants who surround them on a daily basis, in addition to having major bucks and power...and they figure, hey...who will care?

And just look at what we have so far...at least here: 99% of the people here (and on other conservative blog sites) have spent the last few days posting damn near anything they can come up with to denigrate the women accusers, while at the same time acting as it it would be impossible for someone like Cain (who they hardly knew anything about 6 months ago) would do such things.

It's ALL about politics...until the shit hits the fan.

And just hide and watch: It will, and Cain will slither away...to give speeches and appear on Fox.

All you ever do is bitch and whine about anybody who disagrees with you or of course, anything related to President Obama.

Hardly. You tenuous grasp about the facts of my life not withstanding, I'm willing to bet that the number of comments you make daily is easily double mine. Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

I try to insinuate some humor, more often than not, unless the topic at hand is something near and dear to my heart. On the other hand, it's very difficult to simply let blowhard statements or outright logic failures to go unanswered when I see them. You have both made blowhard statements (see above re my life) and logic failures recently.

Other than that, I don't see what your problem is other than that huge, double-bladed battle axe you're grinding.

Bryan C said..."Can we save ourselves the trouble and just go back to assuming that every major politician is a general philanderer with at least one mistress? We might actually be able to widen the field to include someone who can, you know, govern and stuff."

Remember that Clinton guy?

The GOP tried to impeach him for screwing while governing...or governing while screwing.

"99% of the people here (and on other conservative blog sites) have spent the last few days posting damn near anything they can come up with to denigrate the women accusers, while at the same time acting as it it would be impossible for someone like Cain (who they hardly knew anything about 6 months ago) would do such things." I don't think I saw one thing like that. Not one - you're projecting. Every single thing I saw was, "This is all incredibly fuzzy. Can't I wait to react till you tell me what you're talking about and maybe provide some evidence too?"

You're with the CEO of a major organization, discussing potential employment...and you're going to tell him you'll take a cab...why?

Because love darling, when you fly out to meet a man, and then he picks you up at your hotel and takes you for dinner and drinks and then takes you home, that pretty much screams DATE!

When you meet someone at X restaurant for a business dinner, its easier to keep it professional.

If she were being super professional, she would have met him at his office for an interview, but I took this as more of a schmooze for job leads thing rather than a formal interview.

11/8/11 11:41 AMProfessionals do hook each other up with job offers and help obtaining jobs, it's not unusual to have dinner out at a restaurant and why are we assuming they were having drinks, was this discussed in the press conference? And so what if they were.

My daughter traveled to DC , to meet in a restaurant ,with a "hook up" in search of a job. The guy acted like a complete gentleman, it happens and usually doesn't end with sexually aggression bordering on assault.

I said allegedly for false claims of sexual harassment. It's all over the internet, not yet the MSM, so allegedly, yes. Even if that proves to not be the case, she is not exactly the most reliable witness. Look at her job history and legal troubles.

Still, even if she was a perfect witness, a woman does not meet an older married man, whose company fired her, for drinks and then on to a restaurant in his car for dinner for some vague conversation about him helping you find a job, not about any specific job. That's a date, not a job interview.

She is supposedly a Republican, that hasn't been verified, but she's also a woman with a history of severe financial distress, having filed for bankruptcy twice. There must be a buck in here somewhere for her, or at least she's been promised.

I won't call this a "vast leftwing conspiracy," but I will say this is a coordinated effort emanating from the high with the Demo Party --maybe even to the Obama campaign-- to neutralize Cain permanently. Don't be a tool, Love. Politics ain't beanbag, as Cain is now finding out.

Shanna, MY point is that she DIDN'T send mixed signals. That it was a meeting about a job hook up, not a sexual hook up.

If you look at that on paper it reads date. That's mixed signal number one, which was my point about meeting him there versus getting picked up. Picking someone up, having drinks and then taking them to dinner? Reads date. Meeting for a business lunch does not.

How they acted on the date will probably tell you how mixed the signals were, but obviously none of us were there and can't speak to that.

I won't call this a "vast leftwing conspiracy," but I will say this is a coordinated effort emanating from the high with the Demo Party --maybe even to the Obama campaign-- to neutralize Cain permanently.

I have a black woman in a sociology class I teach who has heretofore been an ardent Obama supporter. She came to class yesterday quite animated about "what they're doing to Cain." She explained, "they always do this to strong black men," further explaining if they say he was coming on to white women "it will turn away white Republicans from him in droves." The old stereotype of black men wanting white women, and all that. She said she was going to register as a Republican just to vote for Cain

Anecdotal, I know, but it got me to thinking. We can all see how Cain has risen to the top amongst GOP voters. What if the Obama polling data show he's resonating with black voters? What would that do to Obama's base? Why would a Democrat activist like Gloria Allred be all involved in taking out a GOP primary candidate? This _could be_ tied to the Obama campaign indeed.

Of the people I know that have filed for bankruptcy, only a handful were not business owners. That handful was comprised of extremely irresponsible and dubious people. In all but one case, they were also system-gamers, liars, and/or had criminal records.

Apparently black men are not supposed to show any sexual interest in white women at all. And they certainly can't be President. I thought this was 2011, not 1911. Have attitudes really changed so little?

But I want to be clear--I never groped Ritmo--green skin is a turn off :)

As to the substance of the accusations, this will devolve into a he said-she said; and sides will be taken based on one's ideology.

I am of the belief that Mr Cain can use these allegations, and turn them into an attack on the MSM; I suspect he will come out swinging this afternoon--I dont see where the allegations will hurt him in the least. And may even help him. Certainly the polling data to date dont appear to suggest these allegations have hurt him.

As to the good Professor's suggestion that several allegations establish a pattern? At this point we have only one (IMO rather dubious) allegation and there is no pattern. At least that is my serious and sober (but not for long) opinion.

PatCA said: I said allegedly for false claims of sexual harassment. It's all over the internet, not yet the MSM, so allegedly, yes. Even if that proves to not be the case, she is not exactly the most reliable witness. Look at her job history and legal troubles.

I'm not expressing any opinion about why she was terminated, but if it is true that she made false claims of sexual harassment for which she was fired, and THEN, knowing this, Mr. Cain agreed to meet her under any circumstances which didn't include multiple attentive witnesses at all times, I'd call that a massive failure in judgment.

Professional women have this problem a lot (I hear- being married before you become professional helps in so many ways) - is this networking or is this a date? The line is not always clear, and men, particularly those in power, tend to give themselves too much credit for attractiveness, while women tend to fear clarifying because there's not really an easy way to say "Hey, by the way, I'm not sexually attracted to you" when he hasn't made that clearly his intention.

There's no easy answer - as long as men and women are working together and have to network with each other, the line between being nice and flirting can be thin. You've got to be upfront and clear up any misunderstandings asap. Like Ms. B did here.

I just apply the Clinton standard to it. I was never great on going after Clinton for his indiscretions. His private life, his business. The grand jury was essentially an overblown excuse for his political enemies to attack him. It made me think less of the grand jury system than Clinton.

With Cain here. He seems somewhat unpolished still. But learning. I'm a modern conservative I guess. I don't really care if he was dating even if he was married. It is pretty common in America. So common as it should be a non issue except for the gadflys

What's with all this any way? Is this the age of Boston, MA in mid 17th century and Heather Prynne? Or, the early 20th century South where black men were lynched for being with a white woman? Come on libruls, it's 2011.

The whole thing is weird. The character of Bialek is questionable. Her account of the events screams date and failed pass. (I want a guy to help me find a job, so I fly out to see him, find out that he's upgraded my hotel room, have drinks with him at the hotel bar, and then go out to dinner with him in his car. That's a date, folks, not a professional networking interview.) Some things make no sense at all. (He reached for my crotch while pulling my head toward his crotch. I don't know how someone would physically perform that move.)

But I don't know about Cain's character. He could be a total womanizer for all I know. I know that it's not uncommon for "upstanding" men to make pretty bold passes at women.

Who knows? Wait and see... wait and see...

Some of these other women need to give details so that this can be sorted.

Now, if everything bad about Cain turned out to be true, would I fail to vote for him over Obama. Probably not. It would be a decision between womanizer jerk and economy destroying jerk, so the womanizer jerk would probably win.

What principle is that? I don't have a principle that says one man's sexual harassment is worse than plunging a huge number of families into poverty or government assistance and greatly expanding the State. I might, I think, have a principle that says it's wrong to sell the next generation into State slavery to keep one creep out of office.

Shouting Thomas: Reading Ann Althouse's comments closely, I think she is saying that no matter what Cain does now, this death by a thousand cuts (OK, four) claims is designed to raise a question in one's mind (assuming, unlike Occupying Allie one has a mind)about Cain. You can't unring a bell, you can't unsay what has been said. Accordingly (I think is Ann's point) the campaign to besmirch Cain has already succeeded regardless of the truth of the situation. I agree with you ST that the charges are nonsensical and suspect. And as for the question from Ann and others about the reason for Ms. Bialek's dismissal from NRA --> Drudge from Freerepulic (google "Bialek fired NRA"). May I add that the demands that any commenter "prove" anything are multiplying and are ridiculous: and no I can't prove that statement either.

Oh -- and forestall Allie (in whatever avatar she has decided to appear this hour) and Love (whoever it is): of course inappropriate behavior in the workplace has been part of my life experience -- on the receiving end. I diffused it, refused ever to be alone with the creep, and he ended up in federal prison for securities fraud (so I DO have good taste in men by avoiding him). To this day, bygones would never be bygones and I would never appear in a picture with him grinning and touching him: so, Ms. Bialek, shame on you.

Meanwhile, a fifth woman has come out to talk about some suspect activity at the hands of Cain.

Former employee of the United States Agency for International Development Donna Donella, 40, from Arlington, said the Republican presidential candidate asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago.

She told the Washington Examiner: 'After the seminar was over. Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, "Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?"'

When she declined to saying she didn't feel comfortable doing it, he then invited her to dinner. She accepted and brought two colleagues with her.

Though she said Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, he did order two $400 bottles of wine and left the women with the bill.

edutcher - Can we assume you consider those with whom you disagree as "trolls?"

Instead, consider them to be people who spend more time thinking and researching before posting inane comments representing nothing more than a regurgitation of what you and others here have have already heard via Beck, Rush and Fox?

Eddy, and you are the Althouse washer woman gossip, posting every new piece of dreck that Drudge posts, then you have to go back and retract it, as in Bialek lives in David Axelrod's apartment building conspiracy.

I absolutely believe any and all allegations aginst Herman Cain, sourced and anonymous, made by any woman anywhere. Because, as the National Organization for Women will tell you, women don't lie. Certainly not about something so important as sex. Certainly not about sexual harrassment by a RethugliKKKan.

They can't. Their primitive, childlike brains aren't capable of it.

They do, however, have perfect memories, and are able to recall details of incidents that occurred a dozen years ago ... whether or not they remarked upon them at the time to anyone else.

</sarcasm>

Crystal Gail Mangum and Tawana Brawley were unavailable for comment. Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowan (AKA "Fiddle" and "Faddle") and Juanita Broaddrick might have been available, but for some reason the media didn't ask them.

No, the country is not ready for someone who would openly admit he is an aggressive womanizer, but for Cain to be honest, he would have to admit that. Otherwise, he will just be telling lie after lie after lie. "None of that happened," and so on.

It's not really is the country ready for it, which we are not, but is Herman Cain? Herman Cain is step one.

The two women who were paid off were paid off because the organization just had plenty of money to throw around?

$80,000 split two ways is not very much. Paula Jones got $850,000. Others have gotten millions of dollars. $35,000 and $45,000 dollar payouts are chicken feed compared to the legal costs of going to trial.

And why, when first accused, did Cain say that he had no knowledge of any such settlements...when in fact, he was the CEO of the organization.

Because CEOs of large organizations rarely get involved. Instead it is normally left to Human Resources and Legal. Especially if the accusation is made against the CEO. In such circumstances the CEO would get involved if the -Board of Directors- got involved. And that would require something very substantial with 6+ figure payouts or more.

Do you really think they would take it upon themselves to settle such charges without his knowledge?

You really have zero clue as to how companies work. It's called "delegation". Executives have to delegate because otherwise they would be overwhelmed by details. It's also called "making people do their jobs for which they were hired". e.g. Human Resources and Legal.

That would imply that they did not believe Cain, but did believe the women.

No. If they believed the allegations made against Cain then they would have been very concerned about going to trial. The women would have had a much more solid case and the settlement would have been correspondingly higher because the legal costs of the case would have been much greater.

Instead the settlements reflect basically the cost of going to a judge and having the whole thing thrown out.

Seriously. Learn how corporations actually work vs how you think they work. It'll help your arguments. I work with high level executives all the time. And that is the one thing that they never have enough of; time.

btw that wasn't criticism in a bad way. If you're not familiar with how corporations work then that is a liability. Doesn't reflect on you as a -person-. Just on the basis of your argument.

Consider this: if the women had a stronger case then they could have hired a lawyer on a contingency fee basis where it costs them nothing up front but the lawyer takes 40% of the final settlement as his "fee".

That the settlement was that small suggests that neither of them had a lawyer because then the settlement that they ultimately got would have been even smaller.

Then I think legal settlements are treated as regular income so just getting the full settlement of say $45,000 would have bumped one of them to the max 35% rate (I think) so the net take home would have been even smaller than that.

Subtract legal fees for a lawyer and you're looking at something really not that big at all.

The two women who were paid off were paid off because the organization just had plenty of money to throw around?

Wal-Mart seldom goes to court for a suit of $5,000. Even if they are in the right, they will settle.

You know why?

Because it would cost more to fight in court.

Make it loser pays and that would stop so fast it'd make your head spin.

What more would he need to make it a "good reason?"

A sliver of evidence provided by the women of their accusations has yet to be produced?

No, the country is not ready for someone who would openly admit he is an aggressive womanizer, but for Cain to be honest, he would have to admit that. Otherwise, he will just be telling lie after lie after lie. "None of that happened," and so on.

So...women don't lie? That is the basis of your argument here. He should just "Yup, I did it" even if he did not?